coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1965, 1972, 1959 and 1972 respectively and live in Aydın.
6.  The applicants were the Nazilli district directors of the Labour Party (Emeğin Partisi) at the time of the events.
7.  On 31 July 1997 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court ordered the confiscation of a leaflet entitled “The Kurdish problem is a problem of the people of Turkey”. On 1 September 1997 this leaflet was distributed by the Nazilli District Headquarters of the Labour Party.
8.  On 1 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of provoking hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between race and region. He requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 17 March 1998 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged. Mr Çamoğlu was sentenced to one year nine months and sixteen days’ imprisonment and to a fine of 1,576,566 Turkish liras (TRL). The other applicants were sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and to a fine of TRL 1,433,333. The sentences of Ms Çamoğlu and Mr Kazan were suspended as they did not have a criminal record.
10.  On 6 April 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The applicant was named beneficiary in her friend’s will. Following the friend’s death, the applicant claimed her inheritance.
6.  On 12 September 1995 the State instituted proceedings against the applicant requesting the Pest Central District Court to declare the will invalid. The State claimed that the applicant’s friend had lacked the capacity to make reasonable decisions when she had signed the will.
7.  The District Court held hearings on 17 December 1996, 15 April and 18 September 1997. On 6 October it appointed a medical expert, who submitted his opinion on 12 November 1997.
8.  On 13 May 1998 the District Court dismissed the State’s action.
9.  On 1 July 1998 the plaintiff appealed.
10.  On 6 April and 21 October 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date it quashed the first-instance decision and declared the will invalid. Relying essentially on the opinion of the medical expert, the court held that the testator had had no capacity to perform legal acts when the testament had been signed.
11.  On 14 January 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review, which was completed on 17 November 2000.
12.  On 30 April 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. This decision was served on 13 June 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant brought an action for divorce, the division of the matrimonial property, and the regulation of the use of the couple’s flat of common ownership.
6.  The Pest Central District Court held hearings on 24 April, 20 October 1996, 16 February and 4 December 1997. On the latter date, the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce and, at the parties’ request, suspended the proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property and the use of the flat. On 11 December 1997 the applicant requested that the examination of the case be continued.
7.  Subsequently, the District Court held hearings on 12 June, 16 December 1998, 6 May 1999, and 24 May, 8 December 2000 and 23 January 2001.
8.  On 8 February 2001 the District Court divided the parties’ matrimonial property, granting ownership of the flat to the respondent, and ordered him to pay compensation to the applicant. The parties appealed.
9.  On 3 July 2001 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to complete its decision, in particular, to decide on the applicant’s claims concerning the use of the flat.
10.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 30 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias.
11.  On 22 February 2002 the court completed its original decision. It terminated the applicant’s right to the enjoyment of the flat and dismissed her claims in this respect.
12.  On appeal, the Regional Court held hearings on 4 July and 10 October 2002. On that date it partly changed the first-instance decision and gave ownership of the flat to the applicant, terminated the respondent’s right of use, obliging him to leave the flat within 30 days, and ordered the applicant to pay compensation.
13.  Since the respondent failed to comply with the decision, enforcement proceedings were instituted against him on 19 December 2002. On 20 March 2003 the District Court corrected its execution order.
14.  On 22 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s petition for review, filed against the decision of 10 October 2002.
15.  On 26 April 2003 the District Court appointed a judicial executor. On 16 June 2003 the applicant requested the executor to proceed with the case as soon as possible. On the same date the District Court dismissed the respondent’s request to have the proceedings suspended. On 9 December 2003 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal.
16.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant requested the District Court to order that the execution be carried out with the assistance of the police. On 2 March 2004 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an order under section 174(d) of the Code of Judicial Enforcement.
17.  On 9 April 2004 the respondent was evicted.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 27 January 1986 the applicant instituted proceedings against her ex-husband for the division of their matrimonial property in the Buda Central District Court.
6.  The District Court held eleven hearings and appointed four experts, and, on 1 March 1990, it gave judgment. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings and heard another expert. On 1 July 1992 it quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held six hearings between 18 May 1993 and 27 October 1995. At the hearing on 30 January 1996, it appointed a valuation expert who presented his opinion on 26 August 1996. The opinion was completed on 3 December 1996.
8.  In the period between 25 April 1996 and 20 May 1997, four further hearings took place. On 22 July 1997 another expert opinion was obtained.
9.  Between 18 September 1997 and 15 April 1999, the court held ten hearings. On that date it gave judgment, ordering that the common ownership of certain real property be terminated by way of an auction, and granting the applicant the right to buy out another property.
10.  On appeal, on 17 March 2000 the Budapest Regional Court changed the first-instance decision, transferring the right to buy out to the respondent.
11.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review which was completed on 6 December 2000.
12.  On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gornji Grad.
6.  On 6 January 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 27 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,920,993 tolars (approximately 12,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 7 May 1996 and 18 April 2000 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence and made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 24 June 1999 the applicant partly withdrew his claim.
On 25 September 1997 the presiding judge was appointed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) and the case was transferred to a new judge.
Of the five hearings held between 10 November 1997 and 23 June 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 September 2000.
8.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 19 September 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  On 16 November 2001 and 20 March 2003 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
On 28 December 2004 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 28 November 2001 and 21 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a work safety expert.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 25 November 1967 and lives in Šoštanj.
6.  On 14 September 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 5 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 6,500,000 tolars (approximately 27,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 6 November 1995 and 3 March 1998 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
During this time he also made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Neither of the hearings held on 24 March and 9 April 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 May 1998.
8.  On 29 May 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 14 January 1999 the court upheld the ZT’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 29 December 1999.
9.  Between 10 January 2001 and 27 February 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions. During this time he also made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the three hearings held between 11 April 2000 and 23 January 2001 none was adjourned at the applicant’s request.
During the proceedings the court appointed a work-safety expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 March 2001.
10.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 9 May 2002 the court dismissed the appeals in part and delivered a new decision on costs and expenses of the proceedings.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 May 2002.
11.  On 3 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.
On 23 October 2003 the court dismissed the appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 November 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Prebold.
6.  On 19 June 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 5,447,223 tolars (approximately 22,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 6 December 1996 the presiding judge was appointed to the Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.
Between 11 September 1997 and 15 September 1998 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 8 June 1998 and 4 March 1999 he lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 8 June 1998 and 12 April 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 June 1999.
8.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 5 April 2000 the court allowed in part the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 12 July 2000.
9.  On 19 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested that one of the judges be recused. ZT cross-appealed.
On 12 January 2001 the request for recusal was rejected.
On 14 June 2001 the court allowed in part the ZT’s appeal, rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the second-instance court’s decision of remitting the case for re-examination before the first-instance court.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 29 August 2001.
10.  On 5 November 2001 the presiding first-instance court judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge for re-examination. 
Between 24 September 2001 and 18 November 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence. 
On 25 October 2001 he made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
The court held hearings on 27 May and 18 November 2002.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding in part the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 12 March 2003.
11.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 21 October 2004 the court allowed in part the appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Miklavž pri Ormožu.
6.  On 30 December 1997 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.
7.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,127,050 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,900 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 1 July 1999 and 3 October 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 12 January 2001 and 25 March 2002 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 12 April 2002 and 4 October 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 December 2002.
8.  On 30 December 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 22 January 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 1 March 2004.
9.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Topolščica.
6.  On 18 September 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 16 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,000,000 tolars (approximately 16,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 13 February 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.
Between 29 January 1997 and 23 April 1997 the applicant filed four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the five hearings held between 4 February 1997 and 4 September 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 22 January 1998.
8.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 10 June 1998 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 8 July 1998.
9.  Between 23 July 1998 and 16 January 2002 the applicant filed seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 23 July 1998 and 24 January 2002 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the nine hearings held between 4 May 1999 and 19 February 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 29 April 2002.
10.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 23 October 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 19 November 2003.
11.  Between 26 November 2003 and 10 December 2004 the applicant filed three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
On 30 May 2005 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.
The court sought additional opinion from the appointed experts.
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Trbovlje.
6.  On 22 August 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 5 January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 3,938,470 Slovenian tolars (approximately 16,410 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 11 November 1999 and 19 February 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
On 18 February 2000 and 2 April 2001 he made requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 18 June 2001 and 6 May 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 July 2002.
8.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 16 April 2003, the court upheld his appeal as far as the statutory default interests were concerned and rejected the remainder.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 May 2003.
9.   On 20 May 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). He also requested a withdrawal of a Supreme Court’s judge.
On 14 July 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 August 2004.
7.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Baku.
8.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant and her neighbour got involved in a quarrel which escalated into a serious fight during which the applicant allegedly produced a knife and threatened to kill the neighbour. After this incident, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant based on a criminal complaint filed by her neighbour.
9.  On 24 April 2002, at about 11:00 a.m., several police officers came to the applicant’s apartment and “invited” her to follow them to a police station for interrogation concerning the criminal complaint filed against her by the neighbour. The applicant resisted and the police officers took her to the police station by force. At the station, they issued a “protocol on administrative offence” (inzibati xəta barədə protokol), accusing the applicant of the contempt of their lawful order to follow them to the police office for interrogation.
10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Sabail District Court, who sentenced the applicant to an immediate ten-day “administrative detention” for contempt of the police under Article 310.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences (İnzibati Xətalar Məcəlləsi). She was found guilty of resisting the “lawful order” of the police and making insulting and disrespectful statements about the Azerbaijani law and law‑enforcement authorities.
11.  While the applicant was serving her ten-day sentence, her lawyer filed an appeal against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 24 April 2002. He argued that there was no lawful ground for convicting the applicant for contempt of the police, because the police officers had entered the applicant’s apartment without any arrest warrant or summons to attend the police office, and arrested her without any lawful reason. On 2 May 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision, without specifically replying to these arguments. In accordance with the domestic law on administrative procedure, no appeal could be lodged against the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning an administrative offence.
12.  After the applicant had been released upon the expiry of the ten-day term of the “administrative detention”, she was charged with a criminal offence for beating her neighbour and threatening her with a knife. On 17 July 2002 the Nasimi District Court found the applicant guilty of “hooliganism with the use of weapons” under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three-years’ imprisonment. On 10 May 2004, by virtue of a presidential pardon decree, she was released from serving the remainder of her sentence.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Teharje.
6.  On 30 November 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,278,616 tolars (approximately 9,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 3 September 1999 and 13 March 2000 the applicant made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 18 June 2001 he lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 19 June 2001 and 11 September 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 12 November 2001.
On 15 November 2001 the court corrected the calculation mistakes in the judgment. The corrected judgment was served on the applicant on 17 December 2001.
8.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 13 February 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.
9.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 9 September 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.